The God Thing

When the politics of religion and the religion of politics intersect

The Republicans are blessed in this election cycle with both a Mormon and a Baptist preacher. The resulting interplay of politics and religion has ignited a bit of a firestorm, as Republicans and the cognoscenti at large debate and discuss the importance and dangers of playing “the religion card.”

A lot of the reaction from outside the party has been tired and predictable, and one can see the media and the Democrats grin as they reach for the poker to stir up the sparks a it more. But some of the intra-Republican debate has been especially interesting, and demonstrates the breadth of interest represented in the Republican Party, the seriousness of philosophical thinking on the right, and the special strains the tenuous Reagan Coalition faces at this point in its evolution.

Until now, the Republicans have been largely able to ignore the obvious questions about the ways in which religion and politics ought to interact. The influence of the large religious bloc in the Republican Party has hitherto been largely focused on the standard “social issues” of abortion, homosexuality and marriage. But with Romney and Huckabee as front runners a certain religiosity has been injected directly into the primary process. The result has been a veritable storm of opinion and debate about the proper role of religion in presidential politics, and the degree to which it is a valid criterion for decision making. Personally, I love this sort of thing. A good rousing debate within the Party is exactly what we need.

At the heart of the debate is this: does the religion of a candidate matter, and is it fair or legitimate to choose a candidate based on his religion, separately from his actual political views? Many highly regarded coastal, beltway, secular sorts of conservatives have gotten unduly out of shape about this issue.

Charles Krauthammer and Peggy Noonan have reacted especially strongly against the notion of even considering religion as a criterion for candidate selection, and hint darkly that to do so violates the spirit of the Constitution. It takes deliberate historical ignorance to claim such a position. As it happens, I am currently reading a collection of essays on George Washington’s role in the founding of this country. The following syllogism comes through consistently and strongly from the writings of most of our Founding Fathers: personal character is an indispensable requirement for the maintenance of democracy, both at the leadership and individual citizen level; character depends directly on the creation and maintenance of sound moral principles; and those principles are directly dependent on religion.

As George Washington himself put it, “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

It is perfectly clear from the historical record that the Founders believed: a) the personal character of the candidate is of great significance to the nation, and b) the religious attitudes of that candidate have some bearing on suppositions about their character. I think it is also clear that the specific sect or denomination is mostly irrelevant, unless it has a very strong bearing on the formation of their character (i.e. it would be difficult to view a Scientologist with neutrality).

If we apply these guidelines to the Republican Presidential field, some perhaps non-intuitive things come across. If we force-rank the candidates according to evident strength of character, I think that Romney comes out awfully near the front, but I do not feel that Huckabee does. I would put him middle of the pack at best. There is a little slickness there that reminds me of another former governor from Arkansas, and perhaps even a whiff of Huey Long. Clearly John McCain has significant strength of character, as does Fred Thompson.

Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani – who I generally really like – seems to be weak in the area of moral character. Coincidentally or not, he is also probably the least religious person in the race. If I think of what George Washington would say when faced with this, it would probably be that leadership skills that are not built on a foundation of sound moral character are illusory at best, and easily subject to contamination.

What I would recommend to my fellow Republicans as we head into the primary season is to make personal character a prerequisite – insist that a candidate demonstrate it to your satisfaction before you consider voting for him. Then, among those who pass that test, select based on the best fit with your ideological requirements. Do not take religious affiliation directly into account, but use it as a guide to, or evidence of, character.

It is easy for us to imagine that America today is soooo different than it was 200+ years ago. But our Founders, and Washington in particular, had a profound understanding of the nature of human nature. We would be wise to follow their guide in thinking about the intersection of religion, politics and the religion of politics.

Archives of "The View from the Ground"

Send an e mail to Patrick J. Shanahan

Visit his website at: